disney has no intention of EVER shooting a star wars movie in 3D

There loss.

 

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

 

I hope they don't bother with 3D in principle shooting at all.
3D is not a permanent method of format, is not easily converted to other formats, and forces a Z axis consideration of a shot that is beyond the lens as well as alters the depth of field set-up for the cinematography; greatly limiting, rather than enhancing, the available articulation of the shot.
The method also absolutely ruins the beat of a film, or rather, radically reduces the available options for that beat. You have to allow for several milliseconds of time for the brain to adjust to the dimension depth that has been inserted on a static plane.

When we normally look at a block on a table that is a meter away, then we are looking at an object that is a meter away on a plane that is a meter away.
However, when we look at an object in a 3D movie that is simulating an object that is a meter away, we are looking at an object which appears to be a meter away on a plane that is, for example, on a plane that is 6 meters away.
Our brains don't actually understand this and it takes a moment for the conversion to happen, and that means cinematographers, directors, and editors have to restrict the shooting and editing to that which can be processed by the human brain's acumen rate to resolve this contradiction.
They actually slow down the pace of films to accomplish this technology.

That's just for processing time; on top of that, they have to use dual mounted lenses to accomplish stereoscopic vision in the shot and ensure that all lighting and tracking is set correctly such that both lenses are respected and not dissimilar in how the image is striking the lens beyond the intended distancing of the lenses from each other in respect to degree.
This add-on is incredibly clumsy and in itself greatly restricts the flexibility of the filming.
Here's what an example of one of these cameras looks like:

And this is a DIGITAL stereoscopic camera; the film ones are even bigger.


Contrast that against a rather standard Panavision XL2 - which is film, and NOT digital. Meaning; if you go digital, this set-up would get even smaller; contrary to the IMAX image above.


Even a standard 70mm IMAX camera build, with its massively bulky film can tank, is smaller than the stereoscopic cameras.

Further beyond this; you have to increase your resolution just to get standard resolution out of 3D.
Whatever you think your resolution is, you'll need to double that to receive the same resolution per eye if you want to actually maintain that high definition quality in full.
This was why Jackson shot the Hobbit series in 48 fps rather than the standard 24 rate speed.
Keep in mind that actual film at 24 frames has a top end rate of shooting per can of about 10 minutes before you must stop filming and reload the can.
When you flip to 48 frames, you now have to reload every 5 minutes or so, or double load the can which makes the weight go up and your flexibility go down, and you are already over your standard weight from running a stereoscopic set-up.
(And also; a film projector will need to be special and run at a rate of 96 fps to run that 48 fps instead of the standard 48 fps projection rate for 24 fps, or you can convert the entire thing in post to digital and rely on that method exclusively and for cinemas that simply don't have digital; you could down-convert the film in post to 24 which will greatly impact the 3D of the film since it was shot in 48; you're dropping half the frame rate via conversion).

So not only do you have to change your beat for the human brain, but you have to change your beat because the human wielding the camera literally cannot move in the same way they can with a standard camera, and you have to change your beat because you have half the time you normally have to capture your shot (if you want to maintain true full resolution HD in 3D).
This all hikes the cost of the film up incredibly, as well as increases the stress on the set.
No one can just try things and explore a role, character, or scene as freely as with a standard filming set because you have lost half of your filming time before being forced to reset, and your supplies have doubled in cost just for the film itself; not counting the insane IMAX stereoscopic rental costs.


This method is not future-proof, not as flexible, and not as forgiving.
I hope they stay the hell away from it.
Star Wars is a classic and it needs to be capable of translating into the future without a loss of tonality or pacing sense.
If this were shot specifically with 3D in mind, today's 3D; then in 20 years it would lose its entire ability to translate what was being conveyed because the dimensions would be entirely incapable of proper translation - as technology constantly changes, the film would need to be re-edited repeatedly to attempt some maintained respect to the 3D plane that was intended in the original shooting, and this cannot easily be accomplished at all.

Overall; it's a nice method that can have benefits, but it really is a giant chain ball around your leg when you're shooting and planning your shots.
I understand that folks like 3D, and I enjoy it in certain films here and there, but honestly I hope they save the Star Wars 3D experience for the theme park events and for the films just focus on the imagery of the screen and frame and not force the sets, directors, and editors to bog themselves down with an incredibly limiting technology.